Ok so I get that you are supposed to have a good aerobic base blah blah blah. I've never done to slow 180-age heart rate training for 3,4,5,6+ months. I've had my time as low as 16:00 for a 5k on 30mpw. I've personally talked to kenyans and a few serious runners that can run 15 flat and sub 15 5k's. None of them did this incredibly slow training. I understand that if you do it, that your heart is taxed FAR less because your body can get so much more energy from fat.

I guess my question is would these kenyans that can run 15 and sub 15's(I know that isn't fast in super competitive fields) be able to shave minutes off their time if they did this aerobic training. It seems like it's a little overhyped to me, but I haven't done it so I just want to know from people who have that already were fast runners how much this truly improved their run times. I don't care about MAF. I care about overall results. I'm not going into any olympic trials, just my local 5k so unless it is going to shave 2 minutes off my time once i'm already at peak shape, I think I'll stick to what I've always done.

I do light-medium mileage once i'm in shape of about 35 miles per week plus crosstrain, one mostly aerobic track interval workout, mixed in with a pace and tempo run during the week.

Although I've ready you can't efficiently build aerobic while pushing the limits of your aerobic threshold, that's what I'm trying to do. I am doing the slow training on a bike of about 45 minutes a day. But I may be wasting my time as anaerobic waste/cortisol may be counteracting my efforts.

You need to do a lot of easy mileage. If Maffetone gets you there and keeps you from running too fast, then good. If you can go by perceived effort, that's easier.

180-age is bunk. For a lot of people this bears no relation to their true max HR.

"Fat zone" training is bunk. Yes if you run slower you get a little more of the calories from fat but if you run a little faster and burn glycogen you'll need to later replace that from fat....assuming in both cases your diet is the same. If you have a set amount of TIME to work out, you'll burn more total calories (and lost more weight, if that is what you are trying to do) from going faster because total burn is distance-dependent not time-dependent.

Hurting aerobic development by running fast, anaerobic/cortisol, is bunk. This is descended from some things Lydiard said to explain periodization...it was really related to the fact that if you are running a lot and really trying to maximize your base, doing this fast work is going to create more fatigue and prevent you from running as many miles.

If you really care about performance, then honestly you'll run more than you do and replace most/all of the cross-training with running. Frankly your volume is too low to support a great deal of advancement. You do 2 of your 3 runs as workouts...most of your easy work it cross-training which is ok for fitness but far from optimal if you really want to bring your running times down.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

dallasboycows

posted: 7/7/2011 at 5:40 PM

i'm not worried about burning fat later. The point is to use more fat during your run as to be able to run faster and not end up in the anaerobic zone.

and anaerobic training tears down aerobic capacity is certainly not bunk. cortisol lowers testosterone and destroys muscle cells. Why do you think bodybuilders take anti-cortisol drugs. Because lifting is anaerobic and cortisol can hurt their gains. Therefore if you have a solid base with tons of mitochondria in your cells and you start destroying cells by anaerobic means, it would stand to reason that you would at least lose some aerobic capacity.

and I know I need to run more but ultimately I'm training for the tough mudder which isn't mostly running and in one month so far my 5k time has gone down 2 minutes to almost 6 minutes per mile. Although I would love to see my 5k time down to about 17:30 my true goal is to be competitive in the mudder.I mean I'm aquajogging and cycling both which are working me out aerobically and my legs.

As a side note, we had a guy back in highschool that could not run almost the entire season due to injury. His entire season except a few races consisted of bike training. We had this video game deal where you race courses against computer bikers. He trained only the last few races of the season and he ran a mid 4 minute mile. So it sure must have helped him somehow.

My main running prob is I'm only free at about 2 pm and its like 107 degrees heat index. I can't possible be doing 10 mile runs or I'll end up as roadkill. lol.

dallasboycows

posted: 7/7/2011 at 5:41 PM

oh and 180-age isn't max HR. It has a few other rules but it is max aerobic heart rate. And sure it's off. it's best he says to do a true LT test and then I believe do your base at 60% of that.

i'm not worried about burning fat later. The point is to use more fat during your run as to be able to run faster and not end up in the anaerobic zone.

and anaerobic training tears down aerobic capacity is certainly not bunk. cortisol lowers testosterone and destroys muscle cells. Why do you think bodybuilders take anti-cortisol drugs. Because lifting is anaerobic and cortisol can hurt their gains. Therefore if you have a solid base with tons of mitochondria in your cells and you start destroying cells by anaerobic means, it would stand to reason that you would at least lose some aerobic capacity.

and I know I need to run more but ultimately I'm training for the tough mudder which isn't mostly running and in one month so far my 5k time has gone down 2 minutes to almost 6 minutes per mile. Although I would love to see my 5k time down to about 17:30 my true goal is to be competitive in the mudder.I mean I'm aquajogging and cycling both which are working me out aerobically and my legs.

As a side note, we had a guy back in highschool that could not run almost the entire season due to injury. His entire season except a few races consisted of bike training. We had this video game deal where you race courses against computer bikers. He trained only the last few races of the season and he ran a mid 4 minute mile. So it sure must have helped him somehow.

Well, I'm a cell and molecular biologist. I understand energy metabolism and mitochondria better than the average bear. So nothing personal, but you are in fact wrong. Fat simply cannot be metabolized fast enough to be used as a primary fuel for running anything short of a marathon. It is a marginal fuel for the marathon but becomes critical in ultra distance running. I understand the effects of cortisol as well, which is a stress hormone and can be produced due to a lot of things other than just anaerobic training. You can do it with high mileage without enough recovery as well. This is why mixing anaerobic training and aerobic training can be difficult; if you put a lot of effort into anaerobic training it creates stress and need for additional need for recovery, impacting total training volume. So the end result is that you run less. It has nothing to do with ripping down cells etc unless you really put yourself into over-training, and even then that phenomenon is not well understood.

My point about improving running was about improving in general...if your goals are different that is fine, but my point was about optimizing running improvement. Yes, cycling helps, I did that and got faster when I was younger but I improved a great deal more when I focused on running.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

dallasboycows

posted: 7/7/2011 at 6:28 PM

well I'm sure you know more about cells than me but there are documented cases of runners running 5 minute miles with a heart rate of 150 and below. That is in the fat burning zone from my understanding for most people. If a runner goes from running a 8 minute mile at 150 HR to 6 minutes at 150HR then his body must be utilizing fat better or otherwise his HR would bump up and start utilizing more glucose. Or am I missing something. I'm not going to spend three months testing this out. I'm just asking to know.

As far as muscles tearing down, I'm not sure but I know that bodybuilders are infamous for taking i think clomid?? to reduce cortisol.

oh well, guess i'll just follow the suggested 15k plan i'm on mixed in with weight training and cross training for the tough mudder. I guess the whole reason I was worried about the strong aerobic base is that I don't want to crap out at about 7 or 8 miles into the race as I'm going to be doing it competitively and not leisurely and I was just making sure that mixing in my SS, tempo, intervals, etc. wouldn't hurt my training since I have no aerobic base.

well I'm sure you know more about cells than me but there are documented cases of runners running 5 minute miles with a heart rate of 150 and below. That is in the fat burning zone from my understanding for most people. If a runner goes from running a 8 minute mile at 150 HR to 6 minutes at 150HR then his body must be utilizing fat better or otherwise his HR would bump up and start utilizing more glucose. Or am I missing something. I'm not going to spend three months testing this out. I'm just asking to know.

As far as muscles tearing down, I'm not sure but I know that bodybuilders are infamous for taking i think clomid?? to reduce cortisol.

oh well, guess i'll just follow the suggested 15k plan i'm on mixed in with weight training and cross training for the tough mudder. I guess the whole reason I was worried about the strong aerobic base is that I don't want to crap out at about 7 or 8 miles into the race as I'm going to be doing it competitively and not leisurely and I was just making sure that mixing in my SS, tempo, intervals, etc. wouldn't hurt my training since I have no aerobic base.

The whole fat-burning zone thing is a myth. People who can run faster at a given HR have simply developed the ability to produce more energy per unit time via aerobic metabolism. This has everything to do with how efficient they are and how much oxygen they can pump through their body per heartbeat (increased stroke volume etc) and nothing to do with the ratio of fat:carbohydrate supplying the fuel up front.

A person who can run a 5min mile at a 150HR obviously has a much higher VO2max than someone doing an 8min mile at 150HR.

Weightlifters are stressing their muscles out far more....to failure...than runners ever should. There is good reason they may need to worry more about cortisol. However, weightlifters put a lot of weird stuff in their bodies so that alone does not convince me much.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

Spaniel - a somewhat-related question: I need to lose about 4 kgs to get into what i think would be a good marathoning weight to begin with. And i was planning on doing this by running more at the so-called fat burn HR zone. Is that still something that i should pursue, or do i just make sure that i go into a small calorie deficit every day over a period of a few weeks, irrespective of the type of run i do and hope to burn fat from doing that?

Ok so I get that you are supposed to have a good aerobic base blah blah blah. I've never done to slow 180-age heart rate training for 3,4,5,6+ months. I've had my time as low as 16:00 for a 5k on 30mpw. I've personally talked to kenyans and a few serious runners that can run 15 flat and sub 15 5k's. None of them did this incredibly slow training. I understand that if you do it, that your heart is taxed FAR less because your body can get so much more energy from fat.

I guess my question is would these kenyans that can run 15 and sub 15's(I know that isn't fast in super competitive fields) be able to shave minutes off their time if they did this aerobic training. It seems like it's a little overhyped to me, but I haven't done it so I just want to know from people who have that already were fast runners how much this truly improved their run times. I don't care about MAF. I care about overall results. I'm not going into any olympic trials, just my local 5k so unless it is going to shave 2 minutes off my time once i'm already at peak shape, I think I'll stick to what I've always done.

I do light-medium mileage once i'm in shape of about 35 miles per week plus crosstrain, one mostly aerobic track interval workout, mixed in with a pace and tempo run during the week.

Although I've ready you can't efficiently build aerobic while pushing the limits of your aerobic threshold, that's what I'm trying to do. I am doing the slow training on a bike of about 45 minutes a day. But I may be wasting my time as anaerobic waste/cortisol may be counteracting my efforts.

Dallas:

Why don't you ask your Kenyan friends what they were doing when they were, say, between 10 and 18-years-old. If they remember their heart rate during that time, not so much of pace, that would even be better.

PS: And now I've read your post a little more closely...you seem to use a lot of fancy terms and stuff but I really wonder if you really know what you're talking about.; or if you're just toying with all those "words" and way too over-thinking things. For one, I don't think you'd have to worry about anaerobic waste/cortisol when you are "slow training on a bike of about 45 minutes a day".

I need to lose about 4 kgs to get into what i think would be a good marathoning weight to begin with. And i was planning on doing this by running more at the so-called fat burn HR zone. Is that still something that i should pursue, or do i just make sure that i go into a small calorie deficit every day over a period of a few weeks, irrespective of the type of run i do and hope to burn fat from doing that?

The basis of weight loss is always running a calorie deficit. You will burn more calories per unit time running at a higher intensity than a lower intensity -- the ratio of fats:carbs is meaningless. What is important is that the burn is more than you take in.

Given a certain amount of time to work out during the day, you are always better off (from a weight loss perspective) running at a higher intensity than a lower intensity. This does not mean you should be doing tempo runs every day; a reasonable comfortable/easy pace is fine. This way you can do it day in day out and maximize the amount of calories burned.

IMHO it is easiest to lose weight while doing moderate mileage (for you). If you are trying to push high mileage and do solid workouts, a significant calorie deficit will make this difficult and can feel downright miserable. So I like to try to lose most of the weight up at the front end of a cycle, and the bleed the rest off slowly over the next few weeks as I ramp up training.

Right now I'm failing miserably however. I could blame the beer but the fact is I am just not running enough.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

Thanks .. Your advice reaffirms my general notions about the weight-loss approach to adopt. If i can string together about 8-10 weeks of consistent mileage (not necessarily high) and watch what i eat simultaneously, thats a positive start.

I dont sweat. I ooze liquid awesome.

Scout7

CPT Curmudgeon

posted: 7/8/2011 at 6:56 AM

I stopped reading after the first few sentences of the first post.

My question is: how does any of the talk about cortisol and cells and whathaveyou affect your actual day-to-day training (no offense to spaniel)?

If I read your goal correctly, you want to run a faster 5K. Here's how you do it:

Take your current training philosophy. Implement it. Run a 5K for a baseline. Train for another 5K with your current philosophy. Run the 5K. See if the results are what you were expecting/hoping for. Change something in your current philosophy to experiment. Run another 5K. See if the results are what you were expecting/hoping for. Tweak again. Rinse. Repeat.

Training is not static. What worked last week, last month, last year, will not have the same effects this time around. So you adjust, try again, see what happens. If you didn't like the change, if it didn't work for you, then you change it back to what it was, and try something different.

Training is a system, and it has points of leverage that can be tweaked and fine-tuned, but you have to be attentive to what you change and what the results are.

All the talk of fat and cortisol and muscles and everything isn't going to change any of that.